Literature DB >> 22006581

Classifying retrieval strategies as a function of working memory.

Jenni L Schelble1, David J Therriault, M David Miller.   

Abstract

Strategy selection may help explain performance differences between individuals with high working memory capacity (HWMs) and low working memory capacity (LWMs) (Budd, Whitney, & Turley, (Memory & Cognition, 23, 735-748 1995); Cokely, Kelley, & Gilchrist, (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 991-997 2006). We compared the independent and spontaneous strategy use of HWMs and LWMs during a category fluency (retrieval) task that required participants to retrieve animal names. HWMs were more successful at the fluency task under normal conditions, but under increased cognitive load, there were no WM-related performance differences. One strategy (i.e., retrieving animals according to their scientific classification) significantly aided performance, irrespective of cognitive load. Under normal conditions, HWMs were more likely to use the effective strategy; however, under load, WM did not predict strategy use. Use of the classification strategy was more strongly related to retrieval performance than was WM. These results suggest that retrieval strategy use is related to WM capacity, and that employing a successful strategy may make up for WM disadvantages during a demanding retrieval task.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22006581     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0149-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  16 in total

1.  Working memory capacity and strategy use.

Authors:  D S McNamara; J L Scott
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2001-01

2.  Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval.

Authors:  M J Kane; R W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: a test of four hypotheses.

Authors:  R W Engle; J Cantor; J J Carullo
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.

Authors:  Michael J Kane; David Z Hambrick; Stephen W Tuholski; Oliver Wilhelm; Tabitha W Payne; Randall W Engle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2004-06

Review 5.  A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking.

Authors:  A Roelofs
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1992-03

6.  The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure.

Authors:  Sian L Beilock; Marci S Decaro
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Strategy use in the reading span test: an analysis of eye movements and reported encoding strategies.

Authors:  Johanna K Kaakinen; Jukka Hyönä
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2007-08

9.  Sources of individual differences in working memory: contributions of strategy to capacity.

Authors:  Edward T Cokely; Colleen M Kelley; Amanda L Gilchrist
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-12

Review 10.  Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide.

Authors:  Andrew R A Conway; Michael J Kane; Michael F Bunting; D Zach Hambrick; Oliver Wilhelm; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-10
View more
  3 in total

1.  Working memory capacity and retrieval from long-term memory: the role of controlled search.

Authors:  Nash Unsworth; Gene A Brewer; Gregory J Spillers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2013-02

2.  The strategy and motivational influences on the beneficial effect of neurostimulation: a tDCS and fNIRS study.

Authors:  Kevin T Jones; Filiz Gözenman; Marian E Berryhill
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Parietal contributions to visual working memory depend on task difficulty.

Authors:  Kevin T Jones; Marian E Berryhill
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 4.157

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.